National security? Civil liberties? Must be socialist conspiracy

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

McCain Lobbyist Scandal Continues: Government Warned Senator That Campaign Manager Was Undermining National Interests

The lobbying firm of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis acted in direct opposition to American foreign interests, which prompted a warning to McCain's Senate office from the United States government, according to a recent New York Times article.

Much has been reported about Rick Davis, top McCain adviser and lobbyist whose company, Davis Manafort, made its fortune in part by accepting jobs that didn't require employees to register as lobbyists. Davis has been in particular hot water for his company's work with pro-Russian Ukranian political candidates; Davis arranged for one of Putin's allies to meet with McCain during the time.

However, the New York Times has managed to take that already embarrassing story and make it even worse:

Mr. McCain may have first become aware of Davis Manafort's activities in Ukraine as far back as 2005. At that time, a staff member at the National Security Council called Mr. McCain's Senate office to complain that Mr. Davis's lobbying firm was undercutting American foreign policy in Ukraine, said a person with direct knowledge of the phone call who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A campaign spokesman, when asked whether such a call had occurred, referred a reporter to Mr. McCain's office. The spokesman there, Robert Fischer, did not respond to repeated inquiries.

Such a call might mean that Mr. McCain has been long aware of Mr. Davis's foreign clients. Mr. Davis took a leave from his firm at the end of 2006.

This isn't the only time when Davis' business interests have appeared counter to those of the United States: Davis' Ukranian contacts shared several business ties with Iran.

McCain suffered from a perception problem last month when the extent of his lobbying connection caused his campaign to fire several key staffers, as well as institute a new conflict-of-interest policy. The McCain camp has said that Davis is unaffected by the policy, as its implementation is not retroactive. Davis is no longer registered as a lobbyist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12/mccain-lobbyist-scandal-c_n_106832.html

We just posted where these facilities are and what is going on, but hey....don't worry....no national security risk. OMG! What a bunch of flipping morons!!!

"We cannot rely only on our military for our national security, we need to have a Civilian National Security force that is just as strong, just as well funded."

During the civil war the rich people, who owned slaves, worked up the poor people, who did not own slaves, into a frenzy about how the north was bossing them around, how they should leave the union and it was an ideological war. All the rich people left their plantations and went north until the war was over. The poor people fought out, brother against brother, without shoes, for an idea. The rich people came back after it was over and kicked the freed slaves off their land, right into the laps of the poor people who had to compete with them now for jobs. The rich stayed rich, alive, and healthy, and all of the poor people were slaughtered.

to be something we would do on a country wide basis. I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them. I meant this as a country wide thing. If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing. I guess I wasn't specific enough.

As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it. I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know.

For a very long time, there have been people who claimed that 9/11 didn't happen as reported. It's been claimed the black boxes were found by NYC firefighters, yet this was denied by the FBI. It was claimed that the remnants of a plant were never found at the Pentagon. There have been even more *theories* than this.

Up until recently, my common sense told me these *theories* were just ridiculous, and I never EVER gave them a second thought.

Now that I realize that every single thing this president has done has been dishonest, I'm not so sure about 9/11 any longer because I don't think there is anything this man WOULDN'T do, regardless of how heinous, to force Americans to *agree* with his policies by using fear, coercion and intimidation. Most things I used to consider to be simply *unthinkable* are quickly becoming not only thinkable but possible and maybe even likely under Bush.

Lately, when I wake up every morning, I hope I will find that the last 5 years have just been a horrifically bad dream, just like that other famous Texan: Bobby Ewing.

In The Captains and the Kings (1976) Caldwell takes on the global power brokers. In this book we find, running through the story line, a description of the way the international financiers and industrialists (all private consortiums owned by an elite of the world's richest families and persons) hijack governments around the globe; instigating wars and gaining control over the warring countries through manipulation of the enormous debts incurred during a war. Mentioned too is the Council on Foreign Relations; and while a disclaimer states that all persons portrayed in the book are fictional, it is clear that the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as another major organization of the globalists are both very real organizations. Also described is the idea that political systems everywhere, and certainly in the US, are almost totally dominated by the ruling elite; and that no one even gets into the running for a major political office unless the elite believes the person is under their control. It is explained that this can be direct control; e.g., the candidate takes a solemn oath to be true to that organization above all others; or indirect control: the candidate is known to have done something illegal or scandalous. The threat of public exposure can then be used to bend the person to the will of the elite. Politicians can also be compromised through a "set-up". When necessary the elite will play that hand (conform or be ruined by the controlled media). It is further explained that there have been a few who were not under the control of the elite (back in the 40s and 50s) and who had some success on their own. These individuals were not corruptible and in such cases very dirty tricks were employed against them. There is a figure in the book obviously symbolising JFK, who went along with the elitists (his father's cronies), but who once in power went his own way - resulting in his assassination.

Economic crisis well controlled so far, maybe to give the republicans a chance at winning and to keep Bush from being blamed. Will they let the flood gates loose in January? Let us go into full blown economic depression? So far, they have only rescued themselves, not ordinary people. Maybe there won't be anything left to help ordinary people?

who is obviously a disturbed man who owns guns and you blame Fox News for what he did. Are you kidding me?

I've said this before and I will say it again.....Fox News has the highest ratings....higher than MSNBC and CNN combined. A lot of people are not happy with the way are country is being run and they obviously like what they hear on Fox or they wouldn't be watching it.

Fox News is not the root of all evil. Government corruption, however, is. So why don't you try holding ALL politicians accountable for their actions instead of blaming Fox News and Bush for everything.

Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.

Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.

The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.

Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize. Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below.

As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time. Democratic affiliation changed with FDR. Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!

Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.

So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote?

What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said: Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men. So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.' That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status.

How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it: 'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'? Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states.

How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'? What if they had said: Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales. Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry.

I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes. But a fair number of folks rightly would have said: Huh? Aren't these silly distinctions? A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'

If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?

to hide the TRUTH from the American public!!!!! That's rich. You're mask of sanity is slip-slip-slipping. PAY NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain - we at Faux are the ONLY media you can trust! Really. . . we mean it . . . we would never deceive you . . . we have Rove, Morris, Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity . . . a virtual treasure trove of impartial commentators.

House Debate and Passage
The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

I thought after reading your post that there was something wrong with that statement, Republicans passed the civil rights act; Huh?? Then I remembered at that time the south was predominantly Democratic and I believe those elected officials were voting more on their constituents' demands than on the platform of the Democratic party. That also explains why Johnson said, **As of today, Democrats have lost the south.** and he was right. It looks to me like a bipartisan deal. I got the above information from the Everett Dirksen Library Archives.

This also demonstrates to me how a party can change or evolve its platforms. The Democratic south was once **the little people, the working class, the most good for the most people party.** After the civil rights act the south became predominantly Republican and remains so. In 1964 the south did not want equal rights for women, blacks, religions. They wanted things to stay the way they were. I think the Republicans provided that for them. In 1964 I think it safe to say that WASP was pretty much the bulk of the Republican party and that appealed to the south who were being forced at gunpoint to change.

I don't know about the suffrage movement but I always wonder if they caught the same flack then that NOW gets now. I am going to look that up though.

Never in my lifetime have issues gotten so ugly/hateful. This will be the first illegal election in history if Sen. Obama is elected. People do not care that he does not meet the requirements to be President. They will go against the constitution just to get him elected. Why? I know there are a lot of people who would like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. If Obama who is not a native born, and is possibly not even a US Citizen can be elected and have the constitution violated for him, then we should be able to do it for Gov. Schwarzenegger. There are so many people who will say we have to protect the constitution, yet they�ll turn a blind eye when it comes to electing someone who is not an American born, and who is possibly still a citizen of Indonesia (forget that he is Muslin, I don�t care about his religion, he may possibly be a citizen of another country). We have a candidate who is so busy running around like a chicken with his head cut off suppressing the truth from Americans, and there are Americans attacking others (no that that girl with a B in her face � I hope she is prosecuted for what she has done), but others who attack (verbally and physically) anyone who is not allowing this lie to proceed. Mr. Obama was supposed to be checked out thoroughly before he could run and the DNC failed to do that. Mr. Obama is calling for the health records of all candidates, yet he won�t release his own. Sorry but a one-page statement from his doctor saying Mr. Obama is healthy, that's all you need to know, with no details whatsoever (and from someone whose parents died at a young age and he smoked his whole life and took drugs and drank) the American people have a right to know this � especially since their side is pushing to have Palin & McCains �full� records be known to the public and people are screaming and shouting its their right to know the full health records of the republicans, shouldn�t that go for Obama too? Then there is the issue of his school records. Why is he desperately trying to suppress those. Most likely it will show he is a citizen of Indonesia and never became a US Citizen. You know if a democrat president is elected fine, just let it be a legal one. Follow the constitution and not this love-fest everyone is sharing towards Obama. Some good democrats that would make fine presidnets are Richardson & Kucinich. I'd even be okay with Edwards.

But I say we are heading toward a civil war because we have people already threatening that if Obama does not win there will be �riots in the streets like we haven�t seen�, but if he is elected and it is illegal there will be riots of another kind. You are going to have so many Americans angry and disenfranchised with the government that if you thought the Boston Tea Party was ugly this will be worse.

Then we have the issue of the every day American citizens. We are suffering. There�s no doubt about it. We are heading into a depression (do not blame Bush for the whole thing as it started its downward spiral under the Carter administration and continued through the Clinton administration, and yes some republicans are to blame), but Americans are suffering. We are losing our jobs, our homes, cannot afford to send our kids to college, let alone buy gas and groceries or go to the doctor. More and more people�s savings are being wiped out and their retirement plans are worthless. Yet the politicians (both republican AND democrat) are getting richer and richer. The latest saying in the Washington political scene is �if you were not a millionaire before you came in you will be one when you leave�. Politicians are no longer working for the American people; they are working for themselves and their rich friends and against us. They don�t care about us - they don�t care one iota. They have made so many loopholes to protect themselves and have lied so many times they are covering their lies with lies and saying exactly what they think we want to hear.

All I say is if Sen. Obama is elected, the election will be a fraud, the office of President will be a fraud, and with the three branches of office (house, senate, and president) ALL being democrat, he will not be impeached for fraud and they will continue on with their illegal activities. And the country will see a civil distress. Why should we abide by laws when our government doesn�t.

People need to wake up. The constitution is being violated and they are all okay with that. It�s all very sickening. I just think its disgraceful that people would rather see our country destroyed than to elect Senator McCain. Sure I wish it was someone else (R. Paul, M. Romney, D. Hunter or any of the others, but its not). If McCain gets in don�t worry, it will only be four years and then another election will be held and maybe this time a candidate will be chosen on the democratic side that is legal. That is of course if the Mayan calendar is wrong.